Israeli Air Strike

[Kuya]

Well now i'm shocked. How exactly is it possible, in this moment of agitation, for Israel to get away with annexing territory parts of the West Bank? I pressume the answer is, they won't, but i'm not taking anything for granted when it comes to this.

Wait, actually, how exactly is it possible for Israel to think they can get away with this is more like it? I don't understand why they would announce that considering that they have been asked to freeze settlement growth to start working on a two state solution. How exactly does annexing Palestinian territory help with a two state solution?

[archibaldcrane]

Like I said, their argument is probably that the land exposed is theirs.

And you're kidding about the rest of that right, the "wanting a 2-state solution" and whatever. And the whole "getting away with it" thing too.

Right?

[Kuya]

Like I said, their argument is probably that the land exposed is theirs.

And you're kidding about the rest of that right, the "wanting a 2-state solution" and whatever.

Right?

Yes, but they're making this claim now? During a supposed push to a two state solution? Maybe i should make clear what i'm getting at.

You would think Israel would have the tact to try not to seem like they are the ones trying to sabbotage a two state solution, but with this they can't possibly deny that they do in fact, want to sabbotage it. I am simply perplexed at the actions they are taking and i'm wondering what on Earth are they planning.

But then again, Israeli right-wingers, unlike left wingers, always did lack subtlety.

[Elvis]

I don't think they want a 2-State solution. They are continually building 'facts-on-the-ground' to dictate the final-status agreements.

So if by the time there is a settlement, they can point to their 'settlements' and say, 'HAY GAIZ LOOKS, WE GOTZ "NATURAL GROWTH"!11'

This is pure colonialism and conquest. In this day and age!

[archibaldcrane]

The same machine that lead the world to believe that Hamas broke the ceasefire will have a simple time with this.

C'mon, this is Israel. It's like Sparta, but not cool.

[Kuya]

Again, what i'm saying is, it seems like they're not even trying to act like the good guys anymore. I'm just wondering, are they falling apart?

[archibaldcrane]

No, they get that they are well-insulated from sustained criticism, and operate as such.

[Elvis]

There have been tons of studies on the media in our country. The most compelling (IMO) was a book by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, 'Manufacturing Consent', which I'm sure people in this thread have at least heard of.

And as a standard the media (liberal and conservative) function within a narrow set of parameters for what is acceptable criticism.

It's only gotten worse since the 1980s when the book was published. (Does anyone remember the hundreds of errors listed in some report, committed by the MSM in the lead-up to Iraq?)

I don't expect us to get even an 'even-balanced' picture of the conflict. There are lots of independent studies of the coverage that show that when reporting aspects of the conflicts, such as deaths for example, the MSM here will cover Israel deaths more and often the same deaths over again while in reality more Palestinian civilians are dying (B'Tselem - the Israeli center for human rights, check their fatalities section).

[kuronosan]

Seriously. Enough of this shit. We need to cut our aid to Israel and kick them in the balls. At this point, they're acting just like North Korea... except unlike North Korea's big bark, Israel is actually doing something.

[Elvis]

This just in...from RussiaTimes, Paul Craig Roberts on the FreeGaza ship hijacking by Israel:

'US: Israel's puppet government' - Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8ZjVe-nbas

Wiki-Bio on Roberts:

Spoiler: show

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939, in Atlanta, Georgia) is an economist and a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as the "Father of Reaganomics". He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He is a graduate of the Georgia Institute of Technology and he holds a Ph.D. from the University of Virginia. He was a post-graduate at the University of California, Berkeley, and Oxford University where he was a member of Merton College.

[Elvis]

[Kuya]

A surprising thing happened, the Washington Post actually reported on an Israeli company's commercial which depicted the West Wall (which is illegal) as some sort of innocent fence that the Palestinians don't mind at all, and depicted the Israeli military as just fun loving pranksters.

WaPo link

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - A television advert for an Israeli cellphone firm showing soldiers playing soccer over the West Bank barrier has sparked cries of bad taste and prompted Arab lawmakers on Sunday to demand it be taken off air.

The jaunty commercial for Israel's biggest mobile phone company Cellcom makes light of Palestinian suffering and shows how far Israelis fail to understand their neighbors, critics said. The company stood by the ad, however.

Since the ad went out last week -- as Palestinians marked the fifth anniversary of a World Court ruling that Israel's walls and fences in the West Bank were illegal -- some Israelis have taken to blogs and social networking sites to voice dismay.

"Aside from being a great contender for the 'creepiest ads of all time', this one-minute ad says a lot about how mainstream Israel likes to see itself and the Palestinians," journalist Dimi Reider wrote in a blog which concluded most of his fellow Israelis did not understand Palestinians' rage at the barrier.

Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of Israel's parliament, said he had written to Cellcom demanding it pull the ad: "The barrier separates families and prevents children from reaching schools and clinics," he told Reuters. "Yet the advertisement presents the barrier as though it were just a garden fence in Tel Aviv."

Israeli blogger Ami Kaufman told Reuters: "We see Israeli soldiers playing with ... the people that they are incarcerating behind the wall. But the most grotesque, most disturbing part of this ad is the fact that the Palestinians basically aren't seen ... They're like monsters or aliens ... This is the alienation that Israeli society feels toward the Palestinian people."

Noam Sheizaf, another Israeli journalist and blogger, said it distorted reality: "In reality, if a Palestinian comes close to the fence to return a football ... he is likely to get shot."

Israel built the barrier with the declared aim of stopping suicide bombers. For Palestinians, it has become one of the most hated symbols of Israeli occupation, a land grab whose course round Jewish settlements would cripple any state they establish.

The commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iROM7rf_r6s

Incidentally, they didn't ask for the opinion of any Palestinian...

[archibaldcrane]

Yeah, that would be a great commercial, bridging boundaries between people and such...

...if it was like 20 years after the turmoil had ended and the wall still stood as a reminder of when the Israelites brutally dominated the Palestineans for years and years.

[Elvis]

Feeling the Hate in Tel Aviv!

(Sequel to 'Feeling the hate in Jerusalem')

From Max Blumenthal

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ze5dbxPO8cU

[Faris]

can anyone here understand why we; the arabs need to boycott american/israel-related products now?

Israeli PM lays out peace terms


Israel's settlement building has been a stumbling block to the peace process [AFP]



Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has called for the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state, saying this would be key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

In his much-anticipated policy speech on Sunday, Netanyahu called for the immediate resumption of peace talks between the two sides.

"In my vision of peace, two people live in good neighbourly relations, each with their own flag ... Neither threaten the other's security," he told his audience at Bar-Ilan University, outside Tel Aviv.

"In any peace agreement, the territory under Palestinian control must be disarmed, with solid security guarantees for Israel."

Netanyahu called for "immediate negotiations for peace without prior arrangements" from the Palestinians, and said he was willing to meet Arab leaders anywhere to discuss the issue.

"I call the leaders of the Arab nations to co-operate with the Palestinians and with us on economic peace," he said.

Palestinian reaction

But the Palestinian Authority based in Ramallah in the West Bank reacted angrily to Netanyahu's demands.

Nabil Abu Rdainah, a spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, dismissed the speech, saying: "Netanyahu's remarks have sabotaged all initiatives, paralysed all efforts being made and challenges the Palestinian, Arab and American positions."

In depth

Profile: Binyamin Netanyahu
World awaits Netanyahu speech
Q&A: Jewish settlements
Netanyahu on peace
Riz Khan: The battle over Israeli settlements
Riz Khan: The future of US-Israeli relations
Inside Story: Roads and obstacles to peace
Inside Story: US and Israel poles apart

Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians' senior negotiator, called on Obama to intervene to force Israel to abide by previous interim agreements that include freezing settlement activity in the West Bank.

"The peace process has been moving at the speed of a tortoise. Tonight, Netanyahu has flipped it over on its backm," he said.

This is the first occasion that Netanyahu has endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state, but many see a disarmed Palestinian state as handing too much power to Israel.

"Netanyahu did not accept the principle of a two-state solution," Lamis Andoni, Al Jazeera's Middle East analyst, said.

"He reduced the concept of a Palestinian state to that of a demilitarised entity that would remain under Israeli control.

"This is at best a formula to establish a Palestinian Bantustan that will not end the Israeli occupation but would legitimise Israeli control."

'Brothers and sisters'

Israel and the Palestinians relaunched peace negotiations at the Annapolis conference in the US in November 2007.

But the talks made little progress and were suspended during Israel's war on Gaza in December and January.

The Palestinians have said that they will not restart negotiations unless Netanyahu publicly backs the two-state solution and stops the building of Jewish settlements on Palestinian land.

Netanyahu's terms
A Palestinian state would be demilitarised

Palestinian refugees would be resettled outside of Israel

Jerusalem will remain undivided

Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state

In his speech, Netanyahu briefly defended Jewish settlers, a bloc from which he draws much support, calling them "our brothers and sisters".

He said there would be an end to new settlement building, but vowed that Jerusalem would remain undivided.

Addressing Palestinian, Netanyahu urged them to recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

"Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and so it shall remain," he said.

Jacky Rowland, Al Jazeera's Jerusalem correspondent, said: "Significantly, it seems like the word 'Palestinian state' was something rather sour tasting that Netanyahu didn't want to have in his mouth.

"It was only at a very late stage in the speech he actually said 'we would be prepared to work towards a real peace agreement to establish an independent state living alongside Israel'. But only then if the Palestinians recognised Israel as a Jewish state and if the Palestinian state was to be completely demilitarised.

"So, heavy conditionality from an Israeli prime minister who didn't seem to actually want to utter the word 'state' at all."

Response to Obama

Netanyahu's speech had been heralded in Israel as a response to the address 10 days earlier by Barack Obama, the US president, to the Muslim world, in which he vowed to pursue a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Obama's speech raised fears in Israel at the time that Washington might qualify its support to its ally in a bid to improve its relations with the Muslim world.

But Hady Amr, the director of the Brookings Doha centre, said Netanyahu's speech fell well short of Obama's address.


Netanyahu's speech on the Middle East had been highly anticipated in the region [AFP]
"Ten days ago, when President Obama spoke, there was so much hope, there was so much vision.

"He spoke about America's failings over the years ... There was none of that in this speech," Amr said.

"I think this is a sad day for the Jewish people, the Palestinian people, the Arab people, the Israeli people, because this speech does not bring us closer to peace.

"What it does is it lays down conditions. I guess it sets the tone that this is not the Israeli government that's going to make peace ... I think it's a sad day for the peoples of the region."

But Mark Regev, the Israeli government's spokesman, defended Netanyahu's speech, noting that the prime minister had clearly signalled his acceptance of a Palestinian state.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from Jerusalem, he said: "Palestinians can bring their positions to the table. We will bring our positions to the table. This [policy speech] is an important move forward. If all the moves are to come from Israel, then this problem will not result in a resolution."

source: Al Jazeera English - Middle East - Israeli PM lays out peace terms

[Kuya]

As Israeli anger rises in Israeli over their perception that Americans have no right to tell them they can't colonize other people's land (even though they receive the most aid of any country in the world from the US), here's a video demonstrating some of that anger. Racist remarks against Obama have been common in Israeli lately, as well as accusations against jews in Obama's administration of being self hating jews.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R4rmdHhMw4

They are very fond of accusing anyone who opposes their "god given right" to take that land of being anti semites, and they particularly like the story of Obama being a secret Muslim. Hmmm, if i were an ardent American patriot, i'd be quite infuriated with this israeli ingratitude.

[kuronosan]

No, you'd be talking about how Obama is secretly a muslim trying to destroy Israel.

It never ceases to amaze me how much Israel is crying about how they can't build on Palestinian land, yet they want the terrorist attacks to stop.

Oh, and lol:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1090166.html

As more than a dozen local and international journalists looked on, the protesters chanted "No, You Can't" and waved posters saying "20 new 'settlements' by 2010 - Yes We Can!"

Far right activist Itamar Ben-Gvir, who attended the protest, told Channel 10 that "it appears that we've arrived at a red line, which has already been crossed by the most anti-Semitic American president."

[Lee]

No, you'd be talking about how Obama is secretly a muslim trying to destroy Israel.

Wrong. True American patriots have allegiance to the United States alone, with no dual loyalty to foreign entities.

And yes, the ingratitude really is astounding. Considering the USA was giving Israel life support in it's early decades and now continues to give it countless amounts of aid. Any form of advising Israel on how to come closer to peace shouldn't be reacted against so viciously.

One should note though that these are the right-wing in Israel. I'm not going to go all out and do a Jew-Boycott just because Firas doesn't want Israel to exist. There are some left-wingers (who have other policies that I disagree with if introduced in the USA ironically) who do not agree with settlements and really want a more secular form of government.

[Elvis]

I don't know Firas's politics but States are political entities. They have NO INHERENT "right" to exist.

This notion of "right" to exist only came about recently in international politics afaik. It's a rhetorical game. Intellectually dishonest.

The problem is not that a JEWISH State doesn't have a right to exist but that a JEWISH STATE (the combination) does not have a right to exist.

This problem has to do with the structure of the Nation-State system.

Most States don't have the right to exist. However, the organized (Zionist) Jewish community has tons of political capital and can guilt-trip/intimidate people due to the Enlightenment values we are all more or less imbued with by living in the West. (I do not want to imply we're inherently superior. These values grew alongside lots of injustice like the dispossession of the Native Americans/Slavery/etc. but few good things in life do not coincide w/ the bad as well.)

A Jewish State that was created through the displacement and dispossession of the native population (800,000 Palestinians who are now 5 million refugees; the longest refugee problem I believe accompanied by the longest military occupation in recent times) has no right to exist.

I mean, it's a political reality that Israel exists. We should accept that UNLESS we have a constructive alternative and are willing to advocate and not simply arm-chair politicize it.

So if one were to advocate a Bi-national State w/ equal rights for all then they could say a Jewish State has no right to exist and IMO be credible.

You can't replace a Jewish (preferential treatment for Jews/institutionalized discrimination against non-Jews) State with an Islamic State (same idea).

It has to be fair. Historic Palestine was populated by a vast majority of Arab/Muslims. However, the demographic makeup has changed. It's now roughly equal encompassing Israel and the OT.

That video is troubling but you should focus on studies of attitudes between the two peoples (Israeli Jews and Palestinians).

The hate is deep and there's fanaticism on both sides but you gotta look at this hate and figure out it's origins/how it functions/compare it/etc.

Actually, while I think any sort of mini-documentary like this is going to present a very one-sided perspective of the subjects (because I've seen stuff like this on Palestinians too) it is more like corroborating evidence. You just have to use your common sense. If it's on the Borat/Bruno level of intellectualism you should be able to figure out how credible it is.

If it's just letting people be themselves - well, that's another story. That's transparent - not coerced at all.

EDIT:

BTW not knocking Kuya for posting that video. I have posted similar (and by my definition, less credible) videos.

But since then and now, I've thought about it a bit more.

The video Kuya posted is much more credible relatively speaking and it's simply those people being themselves with no fancy editing or coercion (Max Blumenthal interviewing a bunch of drunk yuppie American Jews on a Birthright trip). It's actually an accurate depiction of the Israeli religious right. But to get a more complete view, you gotta read those studies too. They are talked about openly in Israel.

It's a shame how irresponsible our reporting is here. I think that's because more is at stake. In Israel that honesty has done nothing to change things. It would change a lot here I think if we had a press as honest as the Israelis.

[Lee]

Now that I look at my previous post, I see that it could be misconstrued as the commonly heard political phrase "it has a right to exist", but that was not my intention at all. I was just driving the point that

I mean, it's a political reality that Israel exists. We should accept that UNLESS we have a constructive alternative and are willing to advocate and not simply arm-chair politicize it.

I believe that ending it's existence would way over complicate things for obvious reasons. I might have jumped the gun when I called Firas out, but judging by his previous posts on the board and his background, I'm pretty positive his grievances don't end at Israel's policies, more so he has a problem with the fact that it exists. Who knows, I could be wrong though.

Just know that when you boycott American/Israeli goods you're boycotting many of the people who don't support these politics and genuinely want peace. Israel may be very strongly unified and a nationalist state in Jewish identity, but they differ extremely in geopolitics/sociopolitical views.